The transcript.

The purpose of VR is to take you to a completely made-up place, and the purpose of AR is to change your experience of the place that you’re in.

Neal Stephenson

But Stephenson admits to not seeing the whole social-media bubble thing coming, and thinking that there would only be one Metaverse which everyone logs on to. It isn’t quite turning out that way. Every tech giant wants in, to create and own the narrative. Intuitively, VR seems closer to the metaverse, but in terms of adoption, I do think AR can play a role in easing users in.

Snap is a case in point. While they have released 3D Bitmojis and 3D full-body tracking, it is AR-driven Spectacles and the potential it offers² that makes its route to the metaverse interesting. Microsoft’s approach is more VR – to populate the metaverse with “digital twins” of any physical object and use technology like IoT, 5G, cloud computing etc to monitor, simulate and even make interactions possible without being physically near the object. (via)

Back in 2007, there was a rumour about Google turning Google Earth into a metaverse. It didn’t go anywhere, just like Google Lively. Since then we’ve had everything from Cardboard to Glass to Niantic (remember the Pokemon craze), but nothing that changed the world. Until (IMO) Darlene and Chi-Chi showed us what’s possible, with Project Starline earlier this year.

But as Ben Thompson pithily pointed out in Metaverses, no one cares unless Facebook is involved. Unlike Snow Crash, Facebook is planning a more immersive (and invasive, I reckon) version of the internet that is absolutely connected to reality. VR-rebranded as Ben Thompson calls it. They began lightly with Ray-Ban Stories , and stepped it up with the Horizon Workrooms app, which uses Oculus Quest 2 headsets to help people hold VR meetings in their avatar versions, with collaborations on shared whiteboards or documents. More recently, and ironically, they have decided to invest $50 million to “responsibly” build the metaverse.

I think that long before we inhabit the meta verse, we will start experimenting with world building using proxies. Several examples exist across fiction and reality. In Ted Chiang’s Exhalation, the novella The Lifecycle of Software Objects has the protagonist Ana trying to train digital pets which are designed to have a learning capacity similar to children. It’s a fantastic story of what happens to their existence when platforms go defunct. It’s probably inspired by Neopets, which was launched back in 1999. Users could buy digital pets and are responsible for taking care of them, using Neopoints and Neocash as virtual currencies. Even before that, in 1996, was Creatures – artificial life simulation, in a video game. (it actually inspired Amazon’s game plan – via) Given how these days NFTs also play a social status/ self esteem role using things that are purely digital, it’s a route digital pets could take. Entire digital worlds built for them, with humans vicariously living through them in a metaverse. The next step could possibly be a mixed reality. It could start with AR (see this short film) and then move to VR. Remember the Holodeck in Star Trek? After all, we’re already buying virtual estate in Decentraland! Pretty soon, we’ll be building houses. After all, we need to show off those NFTs.

But the “multiverse” in the title of this post comes from a fully loaded version of the metaverse. In $ocial Validation, I had ended with the question of how humans could cope with the “always on stage” and efficiency mandates of “the great online game”. Though I had a clue in In Code we Trust on what the combination of deepfakes and GPT-3 could achieve, the controversy around the use of AI to simulate the voice of Anthony Bourdain in the documentary Roadrunner really brought it to life in the real world. While we don’t know whether he would have wanted it, the more recent deepfake-led promotions of Reminiscence that allowed users to appear in the movie trailer, and Bruce Willis agreeing to the use of his deepfake in a Russian commercial are both examples of voluntary “fake” presence. These are still only media being passively consumed, but extrapolated, this means you could simulate your presence using technology – either something like Project Starline or deepfakes with consent. In the latter, you could actually be doing something else. In a metaverse context, the platform could bring to life people who have passed away (heard about the guy who chats with his dead girlfriend?), and your deepfake armed with GPT-3 could be chatting with someone while you go about your daily life in reality (meatspace) or in a different metaverse. Say, listening to an artist who doesn’t really exist in a place that doesn’t actually exist. We have also created a hologram system that uses jets of air known as “aerohaptics” to replicate the sensation of touch.

Do we then transcend meatspace reality? Does it splinter now into various realities that a person inhabits? In a metaverse like the Holodeck, maybe we could even change our past. Will we have multiple metaverses where we will live out our many real life what-if scenarios even as we follow a singular path in meatspace reality? Or maybe we just slowly build out a simulated reality for ourselves. Or perhaps the future is a combination of real and simulated lives in a combination of reality and metaverses. Maybe the freedom that the metaverse can provide will in time, take us completely out of reality into a digital multiverse. How would it feel? Would our definitions of self and consciousness still hold? One person, many worlds, many timelines. In a way, we are already living that on digital platforms.

1 The Metaverse Primer

² The Worlds to Come

Also thanks to YouStory for covering it.

P.S. There is some issue with the text on the page, so watching the video might be a better idea.

P.S. The bold “question” starting with Exploring this might.. is not a question, but is part of my answer.

It’s technically a new year, but as the quip goes, it does feel like December 93rd 2020. More like a sequel than a new movie. Familiar characters and themes, with some new plotlines. And hence the title, for a short take on learnings in 2020, and the trends expected in 2021. 

In light of the pandemic, what narratives are good for the brand?

The consumer’s needs might not have changed, but the relative priorities, ways of achieving them, and expectations from brands most definitely have. At least in the medium term, health and safety (physical, mental and financial) will remain important themes. That would explain why many brands have attempted to hop on to these narratives. While it works easily for say, water purifiers, it might be a threadbare argument for mattresses and shirts. But yes, Ayur is arguably the most powerful four letter word in business now!

The abruptness of 2020 has also given us time for reflection and recalibration. One of the related changes has been increased participation in societal issues. But a brand pursuing cause marketing because everyone else is doing it might result in some caustic feedback!

What has also changed are rituals – commute to family time to entertainment and so on. The narratives might not have changed yet, but the contexts have. Social screening (movies) and Zoommates are all adaptations to these contexts. But soon, radical redesigning of products and experiences will lead to narrative shifts as well. 

With chimeras all around, how do we frame it better?

Many aspects of our life are chimeral now – still retaining their individuality, and yet to find the balance of a hybrid. Think about it – working from home, but recreating the office online. Digital transformation, and craving physical interaction. Learning new skills, while trying to avoid burnout at work. This operates at societal levels too. On social channels, we talk about being more empathetic. But we also have mobs that seem to have been born outraged! 

These chimeral contexts have an impact on segments and personas, as well as how narratives can be delivered. If we go by Superbowl ads, humour is making a comeback, but we aren’t LOL yet. Brands are still playing Minesweeper because they, and their endorsers are susceptible to cancel culture. Even a logo needed to dress up because one person insisted we all share the perception! Narrative control is a chimera, an illusion. I expect brands to soon have influencers on stand-by to combat trolls and bots! 

And if the action is everywhere, where is the narrative best delivered?

“There is no mainstream, there are many streams”. With mobile screen time continuing to rise, and OTTs having a dream run, both branded content and product placements will spike. Even more immersive is gaming – you can have an epic life in Fortnite, and (ironically) join the war to save reality! But we are un-screening too. From podcasts to the ambient, and omniscient Alexa. Does your brand have an Alexa Skill yet? 

Newer platforms offer further scope for narrative renditions in all forms of reality – mixed, augmented, virtual in addition to our normal agreed upon version. And as digital transformation accelerates, marketers are being empowered with automation and no code tools to deliver these. But the tech landscape is also rapidly changing with impending regulation, and privacy concerns. 

We’re going through an era of institutional realignment – political, societal, financial and so on. The points I have made are more possibilities than spoilers. We might think we have seen this movie before, but we should wait for the release. Multiplex or OTT, you think?

Cred: We’ll begin with the Mad Men perspective, but after a short detour. Brand building for VC-funded startups has a template that actually works. Rational benefits with emotional storytelling. Flipkart and Myntra both went through a learning curve with “Granny and Mouse” and “Where fashion comes together” respectively, before they cracked it with “kids as adults” and “Real life mein aisa hota hai kya?“. It works because in addition to building the brand promise, it also has a tangible effect on business. And that’s why it’s often followed by many others across categories – Pepperfry, LivSpace, Khatabook, or even an extended approach like The Whole Truth. This is assuming that distribution, product, customer service etc are at least on par, and the execution is done well.  In that context, Cred’s recent ads, after readability issues in the first print ad, and the lengthy Jim Sarbh ad, were most definitely clutter-breaking. By not following that template. 

Could the ads have been tweaked to address the “Why should I download Cred?” question asked in every critique? Of course. A simple way was to have a few seconds dedicated to the “brand team” briefing the stars on the value proposition they are supposed to creatively communicate. But any “dumbing down” might have taken away from the bold “Not everyone gets it” stance that’s (also) tied to the credit score-based entry barrier. And add to the length of the ad, which matters on television. “Not everyone gets it” is an inherently polarising stance, and with this particular creative rendition, gasoline meets matchstick.

I’m not a fan of condescending brands, but that’s just an opinion, and it’s irrelevant in this context. Here’s why. Assuming you don’t like the ad, would you uninstall Cred? Unlikely, unless you were one of those who uninstalled Snapdeal three years ago. That example would tell you that just like customers, social media is not one homogenous blob. Cred’s existing users may have seen the deals shifting from marquee to DTC and exclusive to basic deals, but at this point it has product and experience differentiation. Brand love is absolutely something to aim for, but arguably, not mandatory at this stage. The job of the ad is only to intrigue people enough to download. Every commentary and tweet worked played into that objective. The trade-off was worth it. A logical question is “why couldn’t they just make a better ad?” Which leads us to “who decides better” and “good for what”?

The answer to the first is the creators of the ad, and the math men version might help answer the second. If it isn’t people like you, who and what is Cred really targeting? IPL and Bollywood are absolutely mass phenomena, so I would be surprised if Cred is still (only) focusing on its stated target audience – 20 million “premium” credit card users. Based on publicly quoted sponsorship ($15 mn for 3 years) and ad rates (12.5 lakh/10 sec), Cred’s spends can be estimated (~12-15 mn). This is a tenth of their total funding yet. From download data via Similar Web (extrapolated to ~ 1.5-2 mn by the end of IPL), I get a reasonably high CAC.

But maybe, even the expanded audience is the wrong one. Given Amazon’s entry into the core space (credit card bill payment), revenue streams (rent payment, loans) being in a nascent not-so-lucrative space, and a new player looking to expand the market, this is predictably the time to go for a new round of funding. A time in its life when showing that it knows how to deploy money, gain visibility, and scale downloads is more important than efficient marketing, revenue, controlling burn etc. Because tusks >teeth. And so it is playing out. But in the long run, especially with Amazon in the mix, it might be worthwhile to review that condescension since product and experience differentiation may not have a long shelf life. However, for now, the ads’ CTA couldn’t have been clearer, opinions notwithstanding.

Tanishq: I have no Mad Men version for this simply because the brand has come a long way from its “jewellery convincing a girl to marry” days. The “progressive stance” narrative has been going on for a while now. Remember grandma joking about a less trodden path in 2014, and the second shaadi ad from 2017? There have been more, these are just examples. I don’t really have an understanding of the category, but with 4-5% share of the overall jewellery market, and despite the rise of many region specific brands and jewellery going the ecommerce way, Tanishq is well placed to be the brand of choice for a certain demographic and psychographic segment. Continuing the trend from self esteem towards self actualisation.

IMO, the latest ad is a well thought-through trade-off. It’s not random woke! I think we’re doing a disservice to the Tanishq team if we assume that they didn’t think through the possibilities in the polarised, confrontational world we live in. As I tweeted, I doubt whether anyone who used #BoycottTanishq was planning to buy the brand anyway. On the other hand, those who like the brand would see this as validation of their choice. Especially when progressive-sounding (because I don’t really know them!) celebrities not even associated with the brand spoke up for it on social media. As for the real world, it isn’t as though retail footfalls are booming, and we’re not yet in a lawless regime where threats on stores and personnel cannot be addressed. Meanwhile, Google Trends show that the searches have rocketed.

—-

In essence, in the math men world, for the brand to thrive, the business has to survive. At each point, who the story is being told to matters a lot. In the case of startups, money is a moat, and the money in early stages is usually from VC funding (which loves scale), and not really revenue. For established brands, once there is parity on distribution and product and pricing innovations can only do so much, aligning to the self image of a consumer might just deliver the LTV that helps business.

In the mad men world, brand building is storytelling. And it’s long term. “The years teach much which the days never know.” But that craft is being forced to reinvent itself when media and memory is transient. In this polarised world, the only thing that a brand is likely to obtain by following the middle path is salivation – when they see rival brands who can game the system – social media and its polarisation. Though both Tanishq and Cred are different in most aspects, they were both in position to take advantages of unique stories and polarised opinions, amplified on social media. They did. Stance or circumstance, I don’t think we’ll know.

Two events happened in the last fortnight that made me reflect more on this. The first was Apple’s power move on Facebook and Google. The second one was here in India – FDI regulations affecting Amazon and Flipkart. Both were shows of influence, and involved distribution.

It made me realise that the shelf life of this entire distribution-product-brand cycle is shrinking. Disruption is happening far before organisations can take advantage of wins at a previous level.

Distribution: Let’s take Apple as an example. While it might be powerful ostensibly on the strength of its products, I believe the play is as much distribution – App Store. The recent example (above) is proof of that strength. In fact, all the GAFA battles have the same theme. Distribution strength goes hand in hand with exclusive touchpoints, which serve as a medium to deliver and build more trust.

But that distribution has been disrupted! Spotify, and now Netflix and Epic (Fortnite) are examples of companies which are moving out of paying the App/Play Stores’ toll tax.

Product: The moves by Spotify/Netflix/Epic are all on the strength of the product. I am not really clued in on the music and game contexts, so let me take the Netflix narrative forward. Apple and Amazon recognise this threat, the latter is already showing examples of trying to play catch up using Prime. Amazon can indeed subsidise this play for longer, thanks to advantages accrued by other plays primarily in distribution. Netflix, on the other hand, is continually trying to keep its head above water. But despite no original advantages in distribution, it continues to be the dominant player in the domain. Just a small note on music though – in the first weekend of February, Marshmello’s concert on Fortnite had 10 million folks tuning in. Around the same time, Superbowl had a 98.2 million viewership. Tencent holds a 40% stake in Fortnite.

A more visible play can be found in the other kind of product – physical ones to extend and enhance the ecosystem. Add “smart” to watches, speakers, home, car, and you get the picture of what’s happening. The goal is ecosystem stickiness. But I cannot remember a non-GAFA product here that scores on differentiation and success.

The best examples of product disruption, however, would be direct-to-consumer (DTC) brands. The rush from CPG majors to acquire them is proof of that. More on DTC in a bit.

Brand: This is the final act, and the prize is consumer trust. By bringing the hammer down on Facebook and Google, Apple (again) underlined its worldview on privacy. As I have written before, a worldview is bound to be polarising. As a non-fan, I felt it was extreme. An Apple follower would applaud it.

On the strength of its product, Netflix is also a brand with a worldview. It is too early for me to see how this will pan out. So, at the risk of an incoherent narrative, let me switch tracks here.

DTC. The number of  brands that have been built on the back of a differentiated product is rising. Bonobos, Warby Parker, Casper have all built their brands on the internet, based on pricing and sometimes, a stated social mission. They have then extended themselves offline, thereby smartly disrupting product and distribution in one fell swoop.

The overall trend can be seen in many places. For instance, IMO, AirBnB has disrupted all three aspects above. Maybe Tesla too.

What next? It is still early stages. But my thinking is this – if I take the original frame and apply it to the consumer market at large, the internet worked as a distribution disruptor. In the early stages, it was truly a medium that surfaced the long tail. In a time-scarce world, they increasingly delivered choice, convenience and consumption seamlessness. Those who cracked this early eliminated offline incumbents and became the new gatekeepers. Amazon for products, Facebook for social connections, Google for well, anything, and even Netflix – for content. Through some great bundling of distribution, product and brand, they built consumer trust for an ecosystem. From a business perspective, the strength of that bundling is what lowers acquisition cost and increases lifetime value.

But as Netflix and DTC have shown, the shelf life of that advantage is already proving to be small. Apply the distribution-product-brand frame to a newspaper chain (vs HuffPo) /television network (vs Netflix) /education institution (vs Coursera) /restaurant chain (vs Swiggy) and so on, and the shelf life they enjoyed, and you’ll see what I mean. Now, the chokehold can be broken faster.

As the internet matures, choice, convenience and consumption seamlessness will be taken for granted. In fact, as Scott Galloway points out, in a world of infinite choice, a consumer would prefer confidence in the (fewer) choices presented to them. Ecosystems of distribution-product-brand will be built faster and likely not in that order either. In a post-internet era, victory looks possible only if all three aspects are secured simultaneously, and continuously.